Martin v. Fifth Third Bank, National Ass'n

2026 IL App (1st) 250705 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division · February 3, 2026 · No. 1-25-0705

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reviewed the dismissal of Marsha J. Martin’s negligence claim against Fifth Third Bank arising from an alleged fraudulent wire transfer by a bank customer. The court held that Illinois law does not categorically bar a noncustomer from pursuing a negligence claim against a bank and that duty must be analyzed under the Illinois Supreme Court’s four-factor framework. The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for leave to file a second amended complaint, while declining to decide the UCC article 4A preemption and Moorman doctrine issues.

Holdings

  1. Illinois law does not adopt a categorical rule that a bank owes no duty of care to a noncustomer. The applicable analysis is the Illinois Supreme Court's general four-factor duty analysis.
  2. Martin's complaint did not adequately plead the facts necessary to establish the foreseeability, likelihood, burden, and consequences elements of duty, but it was possible that she could state a viable claim through more specific allegations. The dismissal with prejudice was therefore improper.
  3. The appellate court declined to decide whether article 4A preempts Martin's negligence claim because the circuit court did not rule on that issue.
  4. The appellate court declined to decide whether the Moorman economic-loss doctrine barred Martin's negligence claim because the circuit court did not rule on that issue.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Illinois law categorically bars a noncustomer from asserting a negligence claim against a bank.
  2. Whether Martin's amended complaint sufficiently alleged that Fifth Third owed her a duty of care under Illinois's four-factor duty analysis.
  3. Whether the appellate court should decide whether UCC article 4A preempts Martin's negligence claim when the circuit court did not rule on preemption.
  4. Whether the appellate court should decide the applicability of the Moorman economic-loss doctrine when the circuit court did not rule on that issue.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (27)

  • Conder v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 384 F.3d 397, 400 (7th Cir. 2004)(not binding)
  • Zachman v. Citibank, N.A., 183 F. Supp. 3d 922, 924 (N.D. Ill. 2016)(not binding)
  • Thompson v. Capital One Bank, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 681, 683 (N.D. Ill. 2005)(not binding)
  • Reichert v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of Collinsville, 388 Ill. App. 3d 834, 845 (2009)(followed)
  • People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d 235, 293-94 (1989)(followed)
  • Praither v. Northbrook Bank & Trust Co., 2021 IL App (1st) 201192, ¶ 21(criticized)
  • Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶¶ 21-22, 46(followed)
  • Quiroz v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2022 IL 127603, ¶ 13(followed)
  • Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 27(followed)
  • Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998, ¶¶ 13-14, 33, 36(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…